Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I wasn't around in the pre-PPG days but I assumed that 'community' work carried out then (and that is using the word in its modern usage rather than what it was presumably called at the time) was carried out precisely because PPG didn't exist. I optimistically assumed that this situation being so unsatisfactory led to enough lobbying that PPG was brought in and, in effect, the war (against 'the man', whatever that even means, or whoever) was won. And then archaeologists got involved professionally and buggered things up in a manner that only they could.
What is objectionable about this current article is that it seems to be suggesting that the war was in fact not won at all and that the professional system that was established can be happily undone because there are plenty of volunteers to take up the slack and the lovely cute important archaeology that we all love won't be harmed. Phew, that's alright then!
I'm not objecting to Community Archaeology at all as it clearly does some excellent work is of immense benefit in various ways etc etc but is there some evidence that it actually supports professional archaeologists working in the developer-funded world? (other than employing a small number of them as supervisors) I sometimes get the impression that a bunch of well organised and now trained community archaeologists are eying up commercial sites thinking 'we could do that, it looks like fun'.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
I think it is an impression. Remember that a development site has to be carried out to a standard - and it is a case of meeting that standard that counts. most groups can't do it. If some can, then fair play. but in the main volunteers do not have the time to be a commercial threat ( think about it? THey have jobs already.. or have kids to pick up ... or can't commit to a full time project) So fear not and embrace it!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
It may be the case that community groups don't have any real interest in undertaking work on commercial development sites, but the important issue is not whether they do or don't, but that the government appears to be under the impression that they could. As was noted above, it serves to increase the perception held by the government, developers, and the public in general that we're all doing this as a hobby, leading the developer to ask why he should pay to get a professional archaeologist to undertake his evaluation when that nice local group will do it for nothing (and, incidentally, aren't there as a condition of planning consent, meaning that he can tell them to bugger off if it's taking too long). The danger for archaeology as a profession would seem to be that all archaeologists are viewed as wholly interchangeable, leading to a regression to the pre-NPPG days of volunteers doing a few days recording on a development site only if the owner allows them access.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
marcus why should archaeology be any different to any other industry where amateurs dabble alongside professionals and the perception that we do it as a hobby is exaserpated by us settling for peanuts and not bothering to tell anybody why what we found is interesting in an interesting way
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Ah but then there is the local society who's members are all retired the kids are off their hands. They are keen, have all the training and are looking for something to fill their days. They are confident they can do as good a job as the professionals (if not better) and many have run their own businesses. So don't dismiss them lightly.
I actually think Mr Hosty is right and they would not be able to sustain working in a commercial environment but I do know there are amateurs out there who are quite prepared to give it ago and think they should be allowed to, I know this from personal experience.
We need a good dialogue going where the amateurs and professionals respect each other and can see each sides point of view. The real threat is Government cut backs that may result in the amateurs being the only recourse as funding and the demand for commercial or academic archaeology dries up. Some of us remember the days before ppg16 & 15 and even before the council units ( as do many local societies which for them was their digging hay day).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
P Prentice Wrote:marcus why should archaeology be any different to any other industry where amateurs dabble alongside professionals and the perception that we do it as a hobby is exaserpated by us settling for peanuts and not bothering to tell anybody why what we found is interesting in an interesting way
If you could name me another 'industry' where this happens that would be useful. I'm not totally sure that there is one.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
20th July 2011, 04:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 20th July 2011, 04:25 PM by RedEarth.)
Wax and Marcus have hit exactly on what I am getting at - there are volunteers who are quite capable and have the time to cover in some fashion the work that professionals do and the tone of the BBC piece was that this might just happen and we (professional, commercial archaeologists) only have ourselves to blame. But do we really? Look at the sort of mass-media coverage archaeology gets - the CBA publications in which commercial work, to my perhaps warped view, figures fairly infrequently, academic literature which often seems to act as if we don't exist, national media, which simply doesn't understand or likes its own narrative, and press releases seen through the lense of the developer. Our own 'industry magazine' from the IfA is so technical and frankly boring that most archaeologists probably wouldn't read it. What would really help would be a more user-friendly publication, perhaps from the IfA, exploring and explaining the interesting work that commercial archaeologists do. Except that IfA would say it's not their remit and they don't only represent archaeologists working in that field. Perhaps something else is needed? A privately produced glossy magazine with nice articles, pictures perhaps? Any takers?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
How about a glossy mag financed by the big bad developers in whose names we do commercial archaeology? Ooh whoops there goes the confidentiality clause. 
The commercial archaeologists have their hands tied and are gagged by the nature of the commercial world in which they work. One of the many reasons why it is not the place for the amateur.
There will either be developer driven archaeology or development free of archaeology with the occasional amateur rescue dig. That is what I see as the heart of the matter which the public and the media do not understand. Community archaeology is a very separate animal which is being used as a smoke screen.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
RedEarth Wrote:I wasn't around in the pre-PPG days but I assumed that 'community' work carried out then (and that is using the word in its modern usage rather than what it was presumably called at the time) was carried out precisely because PPG didn't exist. I optimistically assumed that this situation being so unsatisfactory led to enough lobbying that PPG was brought in and, in effect, the war (against 'the man', whatever that even means, or whoever) was won. And then archaeologists got involved professionally and buggered things up in a manner that only they could.
Before PPG came MSC, before MSC came DoE/SDD, before DoE....etc etc....we had 20 plus years where central government paid for most archaeology in Britain, one way or another, and of course the Ministry of Works employed archaeologists back unto the dawn of time...ah, happy days....has only really gone tits-up since developers have recently had to stick their hands in their pockets to keep us employed 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Dinosaur Wrote:Before PPG came MSC, before MSC came DoE/SDD, before DoE....etc etc....we had 20 plus years where central government paid for most archaeology in Britain, one way or another, and of course the Ministry of Works employed archaeologists back unto the dawn of time...ah, happy days....has only really gone tits-up since developers have recently had to stick their hands in their pockets to keep us employed
And before we had civil liberties and human rights we had racism and slavery, before we had electricity we had the steam engine and kids up chimneys, it doesn't really matter what we had before (seems a strange thing for an archaeologist to say I know) but having had expectations raised that some form of system might be put in place where the polluter pays etc etc reaching back to the subsistence wages and living in an old caravan doesn't really appeal so it depends on your definitions in the first place when determining something has gone tits up. Sorry, that was a very long sentence, hope it makes sense. Harping back to what we had and how great it apparently was seems a little unhelpful. Obviously I am not tough enough to want to experience it; it does sound a little like the sort of thing managers used to always say 'we had to put up (with this sort of shit) so you can too'. Have we not moved on or should we just hang the white flag from the parapet?
|
